Received more than I ordered

tomwakefield

goater78 wrote: »

...however I would be 95% certain they would get away with keeping them if they wished

That doesn't absolve someone from a legal obligation.

System

unholyangel wrote: »

Mail goes missing a whole let less than people claim it does. The seller might not realise for a while yet (when they go to file accounts or if they are audited).....but as i said, they have 6 years to chase the payment.

If the games are cheap, theres every possibility the seller will tell the OP to keep them, rather than the fee's of getting a company to collect.

Personally for the sake of a few quid, i'd rather be honest than take the chance i'll be charged/billed for them a few years down the line. Especially as all 3 are the same game.

Are these not technically unsolicited goods and I believe if the OP doesn't tell the company that sent them, then its only after 6 months that they become their property not 6 years? I have found this on another website

"Goods sent to a person who has not requested them. The person receiving the goods does not have to pay for them. After 6 months the goods become the property of the person who received them. If the receiving party contacts the sender and asks for the goods to be picked up (and they are not), the receiving party becomes the owner of the goods after 30 days. Before the receiving party becomes the owner they must look after the goods and not dispose of them."

System

arenaman wrote: »

Yes, true, I just see so many of these threads saying this is not theft (cue the unsolicited goods post) when it is.

A similar thing happened to me and i sent them back. It was with videogamesplus.ca. They sent me 4 games instead of 1!

I think it is morally wrong for the OP to keep them but I don't believe its theft. There may be a random sub clause of a law that catogarises it as a theft however I think in practice common sense would prevail and no policeman would arrest the OP for this crime!

tomwakefield

goater78 wrote: »

Are these not technically unsolicited goods and I believe if the OP doesn't tell the company that sent them, then its only after 6 months that they become their property not 6 years? I have found this on another website

"Goods sent to a person who has not requested them. The person receiving the goods does not have to pay for them. After 6 months the goods become the property of the person who received them. If the receiving party contacts the sender and asks for the goods to be picked up (and they are not), the receiving party becomes the owner of the goods after 30 days. Before the receiving party becomes the owner they must look after the goods and not dispose of them."

No, they are goods sent in error.

(1)In this Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires,—

“acquire” includes hire;
“send” includes deliver, and “sender” shall be construed accordingly;
“unsolicited” means, in relation to goods sent to any person, that they are sent without any prior request made by him or on his behalf.

Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30/section/6

A prior request was made, albeit for one, rather than three.

tomwakefield

goater78 wrote: »

I think it is morally wrong for the OP to keep them but I don't believe its theft. There may be a random sub clause of a law that catogarises it as a theft however I think in practice common sense would prevail and no policeman would arrest the OP for this crime!

I think the basic definition of theft, covered by the Theft Act, covers retaining goods sent in error. However, I agree that, in all probability, nothing would happen if the OP if he did chose to keep them.

System

tomwakefield wrote: »

No, they are goods sent in error.


Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/30/section/6

A prior request was made, albeit for one, rather than three.

I don't believe you have read this law properly. If the same parcel had all 3 games in I would agree with you. However they were in three different parcels which makes the whole situation different.

The first parcel was the one requested, the second and third parcel were unsolicited goods. If this wasn't true it would mean that if I ever ordered anything online and then 12 years down the line received the same item again from the same company. That company could claim the goods were not unsolicited because 12 years previously I had ordered the item....

tomwakefield

goater78 wrote: »

I don't believe you have read this law properly. If the same parcel had all 3 games in I would agree with you. However they were in three different parcels which makes the whole situation different.

The first parcel was the one requested, the second and third parcel were unsolicited goods. If this wasn't true it would mean that if I ever ordered anything online and then 12 years down the line received the same item again from the same company. That company could claim the goods were not unsolicited because 12 years previously I had ordered the item....

I think an element of common sense would have to prevail in a court with balance of probability.

The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act was designed to prevent businesses deliberately sending goods out then billing customers if they forgot to send it back in time. It wasn't designed to cover errors.

unholyangel

goater78 wrote: »

I don't believe you have read this law properly. If the same parcel had all 3 games in I would agree with you. However they were in three different parcels which makes the whole situation different.

The first parcel was the one requested, the second and third parcel were unsolicited goods. If this wasn't true it would mean that if I ever ordered anything online and then 12 years down the line received the same item again from the same company. That company could claim the goods were not unsolicited because 12 years previously I had ordered the item....

The key thing is that no request must have been made by the receiver or someone on their behalf. As tom says, its not designed to cover goods sent in error.

Even if they had sent the wrong game, that doesnt make it unsolicited. Where by your definition, it is because its not precisely what the person asked for.

As for 12 years later......I'd be wondering why any company had retained my details this long especially as its in breach of the DPA.

Magicshab

Ste_C wrote: »

Why are people no longer capable of just doing the right thing and instead obsessed with finding out what they have to do and what their rights are?

As consumers we are rightly protected against unfair and illegal practices, but the obsession with rights in this country now is a total !!!! take.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself.

If you reread somewhere, you'll see that I'm not ruling out doing the "right" thing. I just wanted to know what my rights are, since this has happened before.

Lol, making one thread on moneysavingexpert and some googling is now obsession?
Also this seems to be karma for all them times I've been scammed or overcharged I guess.

---

But yeah in regards to the rest of this thread:

The games were weirdly arranged; two games came in envelope from Hong Kong and the other from somewhere in the U.K.
Using common sense it would seem that the two sent together were a mistake. Therefore meaning I would need to return the two, to Hong Kong.

Now since we are on the topic of doing morally "right" actions, it would mean reporting the sender to customs for declaring this as a gift when it wasn't. /!!!!! mode activated/

---

Oh and seeing how there seems to be mixed thoughts, and it hasn't been clearly defined enough, for me at least, I'll drop an e-mail at some point.
Maybe when they ask me to review the process .

unholyangel

Magicshab wrote: »

If you reread somewhere, you'll see that I'm not ruling out doing the "right" thing. I just wanted to know what my rights are, since this has happened before.

Lol, making one thread on moneysavingexpert and some googling is now obsession?
Also this seems to be karma for all them times I've been scammed or overcharged I guess.

---

But yeah in regards to the rest of this thread:

The games were weirdly arranged; two games came in envelope from Hong Kong and the other from somewhere in the U.K.
Using common sense it would seem that the two sent together were a mistake. Therefore meaning I would need to return the two, to Hong Kong.

Now since we are on the topic of doing morally "right" actions, it would mean reporting the sender to customs for declaring this as a gift when it wasn't. /!!!!! mode activated/

---

Oh and seeing how there seems to be mixed thoughts, and it hasn't been clearly defined enough, for me at least, I'll drop an e-mail at some point.
Maybe when they ask me to review the process .

You could technically, but the recipient is liable for custom & excise charges unless the seller adds these at time of purchase i think. I remember reading up on it after i purchased something from US. Retailer put full value on packaging (not the price i paid) which lead to me being charged VAT along with a £8 royal mail handling charge. These charges ended up being more than the item itself.

I only collected the package as i was told i would receive a refund (as they go by the price you pay and the price i paid was under the limit - which is £18 afaik). But i wasnt able to get the £8 refunded!

Long story short, if its under £18, you wouldnt have had anything to pay anyway, but technically they shouldnt have sent it as a gift either.

I would also check, these are legitimate games and not copies?